Usually when a student's observations do not jive with accepted ideas in geology, it turns out that they are not considering what they see correctly.

Did you read 1984. This statement sounds positively Orwellian. But seriously even despite questionable logic what has it got to do with being able to determine if a fossil evolved or not? I read that most fossilization happened under catastrophic conditions as they had to be encapsulated quickly to avoid decay and vermin consuming them. So it was 84 degrees on the day of fossilization how does that prove they evolved?.

The premise that we evolved is not supported by any fossil as evidence. Remember the scientific premise or its similitude== Observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable. None of this is possible with using a a fossil to support evolution. The evidence please.

I appreciate someone who believes what they espouse but not at the price of intelectual hoesty and the "truth!"

Evo science is using bullying tactics when they go to court tp prptreec their territory.

If evolution were not a religion itself, people would not have to give up a religious belief in order to believe it. Conversion is not scientific, neither is conformism.

Also what you speak of where people were not allowed to think outside the box ( it turns out that they are not considering what they see correctly), also proves that evolution has to be indoctrinated.

Evolution may be a religion to some, but it certainly is not when simply part of properly conducted science. It is not a religion to me. It obviously was not to my fellow classmates either, for as I have indicated for they felt no need to give up Christian beliefs when they accepted evolution as a valid scientific principle. Many people have found that there is no reason to give up religious belief when accepting scientific principles.

They did not really convert to anything and they came to conclusions from their own study and through their own free will. This was not a case of people coming into a situation of being restricted from thinking freely. Actually if indoctrination was involved, it was in their previously held Young Earth Creationist beliefs that they accepted before actually being more aware through education.

Your already in, lot's of high schools have bible study clubs. Each side may be taking small steps, but they are steps nonetheless. And in college every creationists knows that both sided are taught about, especially in philosophy and any other course where it's academically beneficial.

Its not the same as being told "evolution is a fact" repeatedly by lecturers

Evolution may be a religion to some, but it certainly is not when simply part of properly conducted science. It is not a religion to me. It obviously was not to my fellow classmates either, for as I have indicated for they felt no need to give up Christian beliefs when they accepted evolution as a valid scientific principle. Many people have found that there is no reason to give up religious belief when accepting scientific principles.

They did not really convert to anything and they came to conclusions from their own study and through their own free will. This was not a case of people coming into a situation of being restricted from thinking freely. Actually if indoctrination was involved, it was in their previously held Young Earth Creationist beliefs that they accepted before actually being more aware through education.

Considering that properly conducted science is empirical, and nothing in evolutions bag of "evidence" is empirical, I fail to see how evolution becomes a part of "properly conducted science", nor how the two are linked.

I used to be in the same boat as you. In my early years I was a creationist, (though I was young then so it wasn't a big deal), then I became a theistic evolutionist.

The main reason for my "conversion" was the "evidences" I was told in science class. However now I have found the missing pieces from the other side and hence have concluded against evolution. Had I access to the other side in my schooling years I would never have taken evolution seriously.

This is the point everyone is making, children these days are being lead down one path, and all opportunities of anything else is being systematically eliminated. To do such is not scientific as science is open to all outcomes, (since it follows where the evidence leads TO WHATEVER END).

Thus this is indoctrination, and it is sad that it occurs in the institution setup to develop the young minds of tomorrow.

I still say, teach people HOW to think not WHAT to think, and then let evolution stand on its own merit and let people believe in it on its own merit. Rather than because it is the only thing being taught as "truth".

Considering that properly conducted science is empirical, and nothing in evolutions bag of "evidence" is empirical, I fail to see how evolution becomes a part of "properly conducted science", nor how the two are linked.

I used to be in the same boat as you. In my early years I was a creationist, (though I was young then so it wasn't a big deal), then I became a theistic evolutionist.

The main reason for my "conversion" was the "evidences" I was told in science class. However now I have found the missing pieces from the other side and hence have concluded against evolution. Had I access to the other side in my schooling years I would never have taken evolution seriously.

This is the point everyone is making, children these days are being lead down one path, and all opportunities of anything else is being systematically eliminated. To do such is not scientific as science is open to all outcomes, (since it follows where the evidence leads TO WHATEVER END).

Thus this is indoctrination, and it is sad that it occurs in the institution setup to develop the young minds of tomorrow.

I still say, teach people HOW to think not WHAT to think, and then let evolution stand on its own merit and let people believe in it on its own merit. Rather than because it is the only thing being taught as "truth".

I find the comment that there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates or shows that evolution is a valid concept to be a creationist mantra that is simply not true. It is my opinion that in getting stated over and over again that many creationists have become convinced that this is a correct statement when it is not. When pressed they will give a different definition of empirical than the scientific community uses. that bends as much as necessary to exclude virtually any evidence they do not wish to allow as valid.

Schools correctly teach what the evidence shows and where it leads. The creationist viewpoint with its supernatural intervention by God, in no set pattern that follows known natural laws, is religion and not science and does not follow the available evidence, only selected portions that can be force-fit into a preset model constructed from a literal reading of the Bible. There are other creation models that differ from the Christian one and also ignore scientific evidence, should all of these be taught? I am all for teaching all of this, but it should be done in religion, history or philosophy classes for it is not science.

Teaching people how to think is just fine, but this is not education as in gaining useful knowledge that can be applied in professions, etc. You could make a similar case for various subjects, but having such a free-for-all where students must sift through all possible ideas is not practical with the limited time that is available for schooling.

My view is, if You want to learn about the theory of evolution in college when You actually pay for it, by all means do so. In the public schools though only TRUE science should be taught. Like operational science or the periodic table and how they work, or anatomy. In a perfect world i guess

I find the comment that there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates or shows that evolution is a valid concept to be a creationist mantra that is simply not true. It is my opinion that in getting stated over and over again that many creationists have become convinced that this is a correct statement when it is not. When pressed they will give a different definition of empirical than the scientific community uses. that bends as much as necessary to exclude virtually any evidence they do not wish to allow as valid.

Schools correctly teach what the evidence shows and where it leads. The creationist viewpoint with its supernatural intervention by God, in no set pattern that follows known natural laws, is religion and not science and does not follow the available evidence, only selected portions that can be force-fit into a preset model constructed from a literal reading of the Bible. There are other creation models that differ from the Christian one and also ignore scientific evidence, should all of these be taught? I am all for teaching all of this, but it should be done in religion, history or philosophy classes for it is not science.

Teaching people how to think is just fine, but this is not education as in gaining useful knowledge that can be applied in professions, etc. You could make a similar case for various subjects, but having such a free-for-all where students must sift through all possible ideas is not practical with the limited time that is available for schooling.

Firstly in order to support your statement can you provide some actual EMPIRICAL evidence? Since you say that the "mantra", there is no empirical evidence, is not true.

Secondly what of evolution can be applied in future profesions. How does knowing that we all evolved from bacterial goo, be of any use in a persons scientific endeavour?

My view is, if You want to learn about the theory of evolution in college when You actually pay for it, by all means do so. In the public schools though only TRUE science should be taught. Like operational science or the periodic table and how they work, or anatomy. In a perfect world i guess

I didn't want to learn about evolution in university... I had to though as it was a core subject, (one that I do see the relevance to what I am studying)

I find the comment that there is no empirical evidence that demonstrates or shows that evolution is a valid concept to be a creationist mantra that is simply not true. It is my opinion that in getting stated over and over again that many creationists have become convinced that this is a correct statement when it is not. When pressed they will give a different definition of empirical than the scientific community uses. that bends as much as necessary to exclude virtually any evidence they do not wish to allow as valid.

Schools correctly teach what the evidence shows and where it leads. The creationist viewpoint with its supernatural intervention by God, in no set pattern that follows known natural laws, is religion and not science and does not follow the available evidence, only selected portions that can be force-fit into a preset model constructed from a literal reading of the Bible. There are other creation models that differ from the Christian one and also ignore scientific evidence, should all of these be taught? I am all for teaching all of this, but it should be done in religion, history or philosophy classes for it is not science.

Teaching people how to think is just fine, but this is not education as in gaining useful knowledge that can be applied in professions, etc. You could make a similar case for various subjects, but having such a free-for-all where students must sift through all possible ideas is not practical with the limited time that is available for schooling.

I think you underestimate the cognitive ability of young people. We do not need the thought police or gestapo tacticts even if it is done in the name of science. We all use scientific reasoning in our minds. It's what reasonimg is all about.

Evidence proves things like gravity, themodynamics the laws of relativity, magnatism etc. These ideas are scientific because they are observable repeatable, testable and falsifiable. If there were evidence to prove evolution no one would be debating. But because what you call evidence has to Interpreted by a human being it does not stand on its own as a law. Evolution is not a law. It is concoction of a human being and evo science unfortunately seems bound and determine pigheadly not to accept its orgin. It is an idea of how creatures came to exist on planet earth. It is an opinion. It is not a fact by virtue that not everyone believes it to be true. I admit that my ideas are opinions. Why can't they be that honest too?

I have a hard time believing they are the intilectual geniuses they pretend to be dispensing god like decress that dare not be questioned or it will be stamped with their negative seal of unapproval "It's not scientific!" No one owns the reasoning process. We all share it.

Secondly what of evolution can be applied in future profesions. How does knowing that we all evolved from bacterial goo, be of any use in a persons scientific endeavour?

Below is a response to Kent H*vind on Kent's radio program concerning evolutionary benefits:Youtube Audio Link

The above audio appears to be an unedited interaction between Kent and a Irish geneticist, with no added commentary. The Irish scientist details the current and future benefits/applications of evolutionary science. The scientist is very patient with Kent, but he is persitant in his request for one realworld application/benefit of creationism as a science.

I hate it when people say that not teaching evolution in schools will set us back from the rest of the world in technology etc. What are the benefits of studying the theory of evolution when it comes to genetics? How is it going to better our lives? This is where true science comes into play IMO. Where things are testable and repeatable in the laboratory, thats where new break throughs come from, not studying or learning the theory of evolution.

It sounds like the same old story to me. Nothing he says proves that the theory of evolution makes our lives better. A creation scientist can come up with something that can improve our lives and so could someone who believes in evolution. So how does the theory of evolution help improve our lives? You cant test and repeat the theory of evolution in a lab and thus come up with a new breakthrough, only true science does that. Sure we can learn about genetics by studying it in the laboratory and come out with something that can improve our lives but it has nothing to do with knowing the theory of evolution.

Evolutionary Theory makes predictions about how certain things will change.

Prediction of pathogen evolution

Virus mtutation through a population based on phylogenic analysis.

Vaccine development based on phylogenic analysis

Backtracking the origin of a disease based on phylogenic analysis

Discovering new drugs

Tracking tumor evolution

etc...

Human chromosome 2 fusion was predicted and subsequently discovered based on evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory can make NO predictions as it is based on RANDOM mutation, and selection pressures, (of which these pressures are unknown until they occur).

What does discovering new drugs have to do with evolution? Considering this is one of the many avenues of employment for my degree of Biotechnology and is based on finding compounds in nature or developing compounds in the lab.

What does "tracking tumour evolution" entail? does this mean a tumour can change into something else? (how do tumours "evolve")

What does prediction of pathogen "evolution" entail? Considering, (as said before), evolution makes no predictions as to how a species adapts!! Since its RANDOM mutation.

Vaccine development is medical science.. No evolution used here.

Mutations are a natural phenomenon, (like birth as you said before), how does evolution have anything to do with it in viruses?

How does "Backtracking the origin of a disease based on phylogenic analysis" utilise evolutionary principles?

Evolutionary theory can make NO predictions as it is based on RANDOM mutation, and selection pressures, (of which these pressures are unknown until they occur).

What does discovering new drugs have to do with evolution? Considering this is one of the many avenues of employment for my degree of Biotechnology and is based on finding compounds in nature or developing compounds in the lab.

What does "tracking tumour evolution" entail? does this mean a tumour can change into something else? (how do tumours "evolve")

What does prediction of pathogen "evolution" entail? Considering, (as said before), evolution makes no predictions as to how a species adapts!! Since its RANDOM mutation.

Vaccine development is medical science.. No evolution used here.

Mutations are a natural phenomenon, (like birth as you said before), how does evolution have anything to do with it in viruses?

How does "Backtracking the origin of a disease based on phylogenic analysis" utilise evolutionary principles?